Ask Onix
Updated 7 December 2025 - Australia's controversial social media age restriction law took effect this week, but early signs suggest enforcement is already unraveling.
Teen bypasses verification in under five minutes
Thirteen-year-old Isobel circumvented Australia's new age verification system for social media platforms in less than five minutes, she told the BBC. The law, which requires users to prove they are at least 16 years old, applies to ten major platforms, including Snapchat.
When a notification warned Isobel she would be locked out, she held a photo of her mother in front of her device's camera. The system accepted it without further scrutiny. "It said thanks for verifying your age," she recalled. Others reportedly used images of celebrities like Beyoncé to similar effect.
Her mother, Mel, reacted with resigned amusement. "This is exactly what I thought was going to happen," she said. While Mel had allowed Isobel limited, supervised access to TikTok and Snapchat, she had hoped the ban would ease parental concerns about online safety. Those hopes now appear misplaced.
Global scrutiny and expert skepticism
The policy, billed as "world-leading," is being closely watched by governments and tech companies worldwide. Critics argue it is both unenforceable and potentially harmful, pushing children toward less-regulated corners of the internet.
Dany Elachi, a father of five and anti-smartphone campaigner, dismissed tech companies' claims of prioritizing child safety. "We have zero faith they will do anything other than protect their profits," he said. His skepticism echoes broader public distrust, fueled by high-profile cases like that of Emma Mason, whose 15-year-old daughter died by suicide after relentless online bullying. Mason addressed world leaders at the UN last month, asking, "How many more Tillys must die?"
Legislative rush and technical flaws
The Australian government announced the ban in November 2024, promising no penalties for children or parents. Instead, platforms would face fines of up to A$49.5 million (US$33 million) for failing to take "reasonable steps" to verify users' ages. However, the law was fast-tracked through parliament with minimal public consultation, leaving key details unresolved.
A government-funded trial later found that while age verification technologies were technically feasible, none were foolproof. ID-based checks were the most accurate but required users to submit sensitive documents-a step most Australians distrust. Facial assessment tools, already used by Meta and Snapchat, struggled to accurately distinguish ages around the 16-year threshold.
Tony Allen, who led the trial, compared the system to a bartender asking for ID. "It's the same principle," he said. Yet critics, including two former advisory board members, accused the trial of bias and "privacy-washing."
Workarounds and unintended consequences
Tips for bypassing the ban have spread rapidly online, from using parental emails to deploying VPNs. A University of Melbourne experiment demonstrated that a $22 Halloween mask could trick facial recognition software. Polling in May revealed that a third of parents planned to help their children circumvent the restrictions.
Snapchat acknowledged the challenges, with a spokesperson telling the BBC that "mitigations are improving, literally on a daily basis." However, experts warn that the ban could drive children to riskier platforms, such as unmoderated gaming chatrooms or sites like Omegle, which was shut down in 2023 for failing to protect minors from predators. Copycat sites have since emerged.
"Telling concerned Australian parents that it's all good now is a very dangerous message,"
Tim Levy, head of online safety company Qoria
YouTube, another affected platform, argued the ban would make children less safe by removing existing safeguards, such as restricted accounts for minors.
Legal challenges and industry resistance
The law faces immediate legal hurdles. Two teenagers have filed a constitutional challenge, calling the policy "Orwellian." Alphabet, Google's parent company, is reportedly considering its own legal action. Human rights groups and legal experts have also raised objections.
Stephen Scheeler, former head of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, predicted tech companies would exploit the law's vague "reasonable steps" requirement. "They'll do it, but they won't do it well," he said, comparing the fines to "a parking ticket" for firms like Facebook, which earns A$49.5 million globally in under two hours.
Debate over effectiveness and alternatives
Proponents argue the ban will reduce exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, and online exploitation while encouraging healthier habits. However, critics question whether it addresses the root causes of online harm. Anne Hollonds, former Australia's children's commissioner, called the policy a "blunt tool" that fails to consider vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ or neurodivergent youth, who rely on social media for support.
More than 140 experts signed an open letter urging a focus on better content moderation and algorithmic safeguards instead. "There's nothing magical about the age of 16," Hollonds said. "This really does nothing on its own."
Communications Minister Anika Wells acknowledged the challenges but defended the policy as a necessary first step. "This isn't a cure. It's a treatment plan, and treatment plans will always evolve," she said. "This is work to try and save a generation."
